Cancel one pending reminder the user no longer wants, by the id from create_reminder or list_work (view snoozed). It will not fire; the item is closed as handled and shows under the done view, so set a new one with create_reminder if needed. Only reminders can be cancelled here: for other Needs you items use update_work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workItemId | Yes | Reminder id from createReminder or listWork (view=snoozed). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains the outcome: the reminder will not fire, the item is closed as handled, and it appears under the done view. That is meaningful behavioral context for a destructive mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action and then adds only useful constraints and alternatives. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, id source, outcome, and sibling alternatives. Nothing material is missing for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema's workItemId description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear verb and resource: cancel one pending reminder. It also scopes the action to reminders only and distinguishes sibling tools create_reminder and update_work, so an agent can select it confidently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states when to use this tool (a pending reminder the user no longer wants) and when not to use it (other Needs you items should use update_work). It also points to create_reminder when a new reminder is needed after cancellation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
